A federal judge allowed some claims to move forward last month against companies operating out of Colorado that allegedly participated in a human trafficking venture involving Filipino laborers who constructed facilities for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

There are three lawsuits pending in Colorado, each brought by a group of workers under the federal human trafficking law. They all allege that the defendant corporations, which oversaw construction for the World Cup, knowingly benefited from their trafficking by overseas contractors. Each case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Regina M. Rodriguez and U.S. Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung.

So far, the judges have largely denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the first lawsuit filed, featuring 53 plaintiffs. A motion to dismiss is pending in the third lawsuit, featuring 27 plaintiffs.

On March 30, Rodriguez agreed to dismiss the claims from half of the 40 plaintiffs in the second lawsuit to be filed. Although Chung had relied on his analysis from the first lawsuit and recommended that all of the plaintiffs’ claims be allowed to continue to some degree, Rodriguez believed there were meaningful differences between the allegations.

The plaintiffs all sued CH2M Hill Companies, Jacobs Engineering Group, and related organizations that worked with the Qatari government to construct multiple soccer stadiums and facilities in the lead-up to the World Cup. The Filipino workers alleged their employers took their passports, forced them to live in inhumane conditions, and did not pay them as promised.

The plaintiffs accused the defendant corporations of violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Among other things, the law allows lawsuits against those who knowingly benefit from their participation in a human trafficking “venture.”

When evaluating the first lawsuit last June, Chung agreed with the plaintiffs that the law reached beyond U.S. borders to some extent, as Congress sought to address the enforcement challenges posed by transnational trafficking. Chung noted the complaint sufficiently alleged that entities of CH2M Hill and Jacobs benefitted from the stadium construction venture and would have been put on notice about potential human trafficking.

In analyzing the motion to dismiss in the second lawsuit, Chung observed the allegations and the arguments were highly similar. Relying on his prior reasoning, Chung recommended in February that Rodriguez allow the claims to proceed against all but two of the corporate defendants.

The defendants objected, arguing Chung wrongly believed he could “import (his) findings wholesale” from the first case.

In her order, Rodriguez concluded Chung’s analysis was correct on most fronts, and the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the defendants knowingly benefited from a human trafficking venture in violation of federal law.

However, Rodriguez noted that, unlike the first lawsuit, around half of the plaintiffs in the second lawsuit alleged that they worked for Habtoor Leighton Group on road construction leading to a stadium.

“The problem is that Habtoor is not listed as one of the ‘participants in the World Cup Construction Venture’ in the Complaint,” she wrote.

While the plaintiffs broadly claimed that the defendants oversaw construction for “all of the facilities and infrastructure,” Rodriguez believed that assertion was insufficient to connect the defendants to Habtoor and its workers.

Consequently, she dismissed the claims from the 19 former Habtoor employees.

The case is Al.C. et al. v. Jacobs Solutions Inc. et al.